I'm not a fan of that kind of thing myself. Isn't that just a odd way of saying you're outing her to specific people? Not cool. And that was a creepy way of putting it. Let's not stoop to that gloating level.

Martin, the goals sound laudable, but did you really have to post such a creepy comment? It comes across as a threat and I know many women bloggers who are threatened by just that type of stalker comment on their sites.

It had to be "Brenda," of course. I've never met one Brenda I've ever liked. There's one from university the memory of whom, to this day, sets my teeth on edge. All Brenda's are evil. ;)

I don't necessarily condone or condemn outing; it depends on the circumstances. It's how the world works. If you're going to use your anonymity to vilify, defame and incite hatred of entire demographics, I think you've it got it coming.

Anyway...Brenda...Brenda...Brenda Starr?

She looks like the Sunday comicsShe thinks she's Brenda StarrHer nose job is real atomicAll she needs is an old knife scar

Yeah, she's so dull, come on rip her to shredsShe's so dull, come on rip her to shreds

At this point, I refuse to take a position on this. I'm thoroughly exhausted from being lectured that we on the Left are "better than that" and that "we shouldn't stoop to their level" and so on.

I'm particularly tired of being lectured by Canada's whackjobs about accountability and how actions have consequences, only for those same whackjobs to shriek inconsolably when someone suggests they deserve the same treatment they've been dishing out.

I'll get involved. Martin, if you are still reading this thread, don't be a twat. It sounds like your distaste for Hunter has gone beyond the realm of ideological opponent or blogging foe. It sounds very much like you have taken up a vendetta and stalked the person in question. Revile her, snark at her, give her lip in the comments. Taking after her outside of these forums is shitty and wrong. Maybe she is the vile creature she portrays online. Maybe not.

I've spent enough time with CC in meatspace to know that he is far more pleasant than his blogging persona or taste for big hair, crap rawk would indicate. If you go after he in real life then you are targeting what might be the only positive contribution she has to offer society. If you take her down from a volunteer position training guide dogs, you might be creating a void in that system that cuts the number of dogs reaching those in need. The fact that she is a volunteer is a tiny slice of redemption, don't go crapping on that.

i've always said, it's incumbent upon the individual to protect their own anonymity. as brenda has already demonstrated her lack of respect for anonymity, she deserves to see her own accorded the same.

Martin, hunter is low hanging fruit. She's a mere party volunteer. It seems to me there are some CPC insiders involved there. You have noticed she always has the latest Party talking points. I've seen articles by Monte Solberg, for example, using exactly the same wording as hunter used the day before. The recent "lefties are envious of those who have more than they do" theme comes to mind. She's definitely connected, and I believe some of her commenters could be from the CPC caucus or their underlings.

Let me put it this way. There are a lot of people who think that us folks have dangerous views too. I mean, enough that they raised a systematic campaign to out CC. I'd rather not feed that energy creature and deal with the collective escalation.

It's probable that Hunter in real life is a competent dog trainer, regardless of who receives those dogs. It's better to leave it at that. It'll become a tit-for-tat game quickly. Blowback.

Posting under your real name certainly is admirable. But let me know how you feel the next time a Neo-Nazi calls your house and threatens your life. Tell me what a tough guy like you would have done instead.

yeah, raph left a message on his own machine nyuck nyuck nyuck. seriously raph, what would inspire a "neo-nazi" to call your house? you hold common cause on more issues than you disagree on. you don't like the gays, the canadians whose names aren't derived of western european stock, you don't like the non-subservient women, the other third of the abrahamic faiths. forgive me if i don't place much stock in your protestations.

martin, there are douchebags and assholes on both sides of the political divide. you appear to be one of them.

I suspect “Raphael Alexander” was insinuating that wild-eyed liberals phone his house threatening his life, but was simply re-contextualizing for the sake of argument vis-à-vis Cameron by using neo-Nazis instead. In either case, it’s almost certainly total bullshit.

kisses martin. i suppose the fact that i'm a songwriter limits the amount of time i'll need to spend thinking about being a songwriter. as for sanctimony, who's the one deciding to go judge and jury on a stupid blogger?

"This is what pisses me off about blogging, people expect to set up camp online, say whatever the fuck they want and never get called on it. Bullshit."

i guess you aren't just sanctimonious, you're a barking hypocrite as well. you've just been called for saying whatever you want, get over it. and have a fucking off kind of day yourself.

Raph, given that I've had conversations face-to-face conversations with Neo-Nazi's that went like this:

Skin1: I'm going to take this guy out (pointing to some other dude)Skin2: and if this guy moves I'm going to do him (pointing me) Cameron: and if you take one more step towards me I'm going to hit you in the head with this chair. Skin2: Fair enough

I think that a few phone calls would be dealt with like this: record phone call, keep log, call police, deliver phone call, log etc and pester them till they do something about it.

I'm not a tough guy, but I'm saying that mocking people and talking about outing people etc etc while hiding behind your fake name that you only admitted was a fake name when caught in a lie about it is a fucking pile of hypocritical bullshit.

Dear Twatsy: Sue me or fuck off. And if you finally decide to consult a lawyer, make sure you tell him about your accusation that I "stalked [Dick Evans' kids] to their school." Because if I actually did that, I'm sure you would have no trouble telling everyone here what school they attend, and how you learned that from something I wrote. And how that would even be possible given that I haven't been to Calgary in over 15 years, and I have no idea where they go to school and never have. But, hey, feel free to keep making that libelous and defamatory accusation, you brainless prat.

Now, once again, Twatsy, either serve me with papers or shut the hell up. You're not scaring anyone, you're just being a mouthy mullethead, and everyone here is laughing at you.

What is with all this extrajudicial shit anyway? First we have "Raphael" claiming neo nazis phone him while he doesn't follow what everyone knows to do with crank calls. Now we have PR trying the poor man's SLAPP, instead of doing what everyone knows to do with perceived libel.

By the way, Twatsy, please fuck off and stop commenting here. You have a blog, why don't you use it? Everyone knows that the only reason you stop by and stink up the place here is that no one reads that shithole of a blog of yours.

So I'm asking you nicely, Twats -- go away. You have nothing of any value to say, all you're doing here is trying to get attention from more readers than you've ever seen in your mullet-headed life.

once again, twats: if this was supposed to be your attempt at mitigation prior to filing, you're gonna have to be specific. you can't say to a judge "i gave him a chance!!1! see??1?" and point to this as your proof. well, you can, but the judge is gonna tell you to fuck off, too.

And that, kids, as they say, is that. At this point, I will take it as established that one Patrick Ross of the "Nexus of Assholery" does, in fact, condone and encourage the murder of abortion providers. Feel free to mention that to your friends.

Could you simply provide an answer to the question, your great superiorness?

Do you in fact support or condone the killing of abortion doctors?

You say you answered some time ago, yet when told today that your continued spamming this blog means you agree with one allegation on this, you simply continue to show up, shrieking libel, yet never giving a restatement of your position, making it reasonable to assume your position is as CC now alleges.

This makes it clear that your position is not very deeply held, and is a mere prop for your continued virtual vigilante campaign. Anyone could reasonably presume you hold either position on the question, since you refuse to simply answer unequivocally when clearly asked. Instead you obfuscate, try to make it into your casus belli.

Why is it that if the opinions of you held by the denizens of CC's blog are meaningless, you keep showing up? Try claiming you are merely responding to being maligned, but that is simply not true. I have seen very little mention of you at all until you decided to again show up here.

Good old selective quoting, eh?You draw a false equivalence. Nothing new there.

However, you have now given some indication of your position, i.e. "my numerous statements opposing all abortion-centred violence, including that against abortion providers, clinics, or their staff".

Whether it is true or not that you have made "numerous statememts", this statement now would constitute a reasonably clear statement of your position. Even if you had an equal number of statements to the contrary elsewhere, your statement here is now clear.

But that does not make earlier allegations about your views actionable, made when your position was unclear, when you were refusing to make a clear statement, i.e. higher in this very thread.

Besides, claiming that you hold some opinion is itself an opinion, and not actionable, you silly buffoon.

Nobody has claimed you support the murder of abortion clinic providers. Many of said clinic providers probably don't know that the clinic will be used by abortion providers. But you made such a statement just now. So you lied again, and you libeled again.

Why are you continuing to talk of action, while taking none?

Because your case would fail, that's why, and you know it.

Your past obfuscation gives plenty of room to question what your views are today, since you have not been consistent in stating them. Recall 20 requests for clarification met with stonewalling. That allows assumptions to be made, and unfortunately for you, you will simply have to state your view clearly every time that happens.

There is no cause of action in continuing to ask someone's position when they often refuse to answer. There is no cause of action in assuming their position when they have a past history of refusing to be clear.

Actually, I have claimed that Twatsy condones the murder of abortion providers. 'Cuz i've heard that. Somewhere. Can't remember where, but I'm pretty sure I heard that. So it must be true. You know, sort of the way that Twatsy has accused me of "stalking [Dick Evans' kids] to their school." Sort of like that.

Abortion providers, yes. Abortion clinic providers, like the bricklayers electricians and carpenters that build the clinics, I don't think so. But PR just claimed you said he supports the murder of these construction workers. I don't think that's any more of a ridiculous parsing of words than PR does every day.

PR will often argue some miniscule part of an issue and then at the end say he supports the other side of the larger issue. For example, I don't think he's against gay marriage, yet he'll argue forever about religious freedom for people who are not actually clergy, so he would support provincial marriage commissioners refusing gay marriages.